United Kingdom

Will be an obvious answer but just to ensure it's in black and white...   The 3 hours per quarter requirement can be on ANY position the controller's rating allows them to perform?  So C1+ rated controllers won't necessarily need to control an Area position as part of their retention requirements?

1 hour ago, Trevor Hannant said:

Will be an obvious answer but just to ensure it's in black and white...   The 3 hours per quarter requirement can be on ANY position the controller's rating allows them to perform?  So C1+ rated controllers won't necessarily need to control an Area position as part of their retention requirements?

Thats my understanding Trevor. Looking forward to someone manning Barra Radio at 3am to maintain their position.

Can someone explain in depth what this self serve to renew your currency?

We all have lives, wether it's our career/family/travelling. We might not able to control 3 hours in a quarter period and if we ever find time to jump on the scope to find the need to renew their currency, that's adding more effort/time in their somewhat limited free time.

You might find controllers will not bother to rejoin just because they have to either maintain their hours or do self serve just to jump back on for an hour or two.

 

That's just my thought

13 hours ago, Robert Terrace said:

Thats my understanding Trevor. Looking forward to someone manning Barra Radio at 3am to maintain their position.

RIP Doncaster 😔

21 hours ago, Trevor Hannant said:

Will be an obvious answer but just to ensure it's in black and white...   The 3 hours per quarter requirement can be on ANY position the controller's rating allows them to perform?  So C1+ rated controllers won't necessarily need to control an Area position as part of their retention requirements?

This is my understanding, yes.

9 hours ago, Tim Smith said:

Can someone explain in depth what this self serve to renew your currency?

We all have lives, wether it's our career/family/travelling. We might not able to control 3 hours in a quarter period and if we ever find time to jump on the scope to find the need to renew their currency, that's adding more effort/time in their somewhat limited free time.

You might find controllers will not bother to rejoin just because they have to either maintain their hours or do self serve just to jump back on for an hour or two.

 

That's just my thought

So what I will say is that the division didn't define the three hours requirement - three hours is a number decided by the Board of Governors and is enshrined in the policy itself. What I will say is that three hours in three months is really not much - I would suggest that the average controlling stint in VATSIM UK is something between 60 and 90 minutes. Three controlling sessions in three months to remain current is, I think, not a huge ask.

To actually answer your question, self serving to renew currency at the initial implementation of GCAP will be a very simple web-only wizard in order to point people at procedure changes since the controller was last current. Users will simply be asked to acknowledge that they have read the documentation before being readded to the roster. No mentoring, review, controlling, assessment or quiz is required. 

Hello, please can you provide further detail and background on the rationale for electing to require 3 hours per quarter to remain on the roster. In addition please provide further assurances on what the long term view is on re-activation should somebody not meet the activity requirements and come off the roster; I understand the current position but what is the trajectory and the objective? What impact does the division consider this will have on itself being able to deliver ATS and controllers who may end up unable to control despite holding a valid rating.

Cheers

Edited February 29 by Callum McLoughlin

Just now, Callum McLoughlin said:

Hello, please can you provide further detail and background on the rationale for electing to require 3 hours per quarter to remain on the roster. In addition please provide further assurances on what the long term view is on re-activation should somebody not meet the activity requirements and come off the roster; I understand the current position but that is the trajectory and the objective?

Cheers

Hi Callum,

I can and I can't - we did not decide on three hours per quarter. That is a condition stipulated by GCAP if we want to maintain a controller roster. I cannot share others' views within the DSG of why we want a controller roster, but I absolutely can share my own. Quite recently, we seem to be blessed with a high number of returning controllers to VATSIM. In some cases, they've been gone six months and little has changed. In some cases, those people have been gone for five years or longer, during which much has changed. Some of these controllers are very pragmatic, recognise their skills fade and ask lots of questions to become current again. Some of these controllers log onto very busy positions without reading any documentation and this causes chaos, both for the pilots that they control and the adjacent controllers who are up-to-scratch and following our latest and greatest policies and procedures.

The only way that we can prevent this is by maintaining a controller roster. GCAP also provides us with the ability to petition the region to remove controllers from the roster on competency grounds, but only after we've tried to remedy the issue locally. Very sadly, in my short tenure in this post this time around, I've already had cause to remove a number of validations from controllers following long runs of negative feedback and the observations of either me or my team. We ensured, in all cases, that these controllers are offered remedial training.

I will be very clear: the DSG does not have a long term view on recurrency. We all agree that self serve in the first instance is fine, in order to point people at critical documentation, outline changes and bring them as up-to-speed as we can on policy and procedure. There is no expectation in the first phase that any competency is evaluated in a recurrency process. However, my discussions so far suggest that there is a well-held view that 'not being current' might mean you controlled 2.9 hours in the last quarter, or it might mean that you've not controlled for 10 years. The way in which we bring these categories of people up-to-speed is very different, but suffice to say, in keeping with what everyone hopefully either knows about me or already or is learning quickly, there will be no needless bureaucracy. The objective is clear: we want everyone controlling in VATSIM UK controlling to a satisfactory standard, whether you last controlled in the last week or the last decade. How we achieve that is very TBC. 

Hi Adam

The GCAP appears permit the division to utilise any of the three requirements, not all. Moreover, the Division has a choice if it does use a quarterly hours requirement to require up to three, not mandate three itself. I have highlighted this below for clarity. Why were the other two options ruled out either in combination or on their own, and why was the maximum of three hours chosen rather than another time period?

• The controller meets an activity requirement which shall not exceed three hours on any controllable positions within the Subdivision or Division in a three-month period.
• The account holder connects to the network as a controller once within a period of 12 months.
• The controller acknowledges changes to local procedures. A controller is only considered out of date if they have not acknowledged changes that are over two months old. Prior to removing a controller from the roster a Subdivision shall notify the controller to allow them to re-establish currency within a one month period. Acknowledging changes to procedures may only consist of reading, accepting and responding to information.

Moreover, I note that the division will be limited anyway in terms of what can be required in terms of re-currency.

When a controller previously removed from the roster due to ‘currency’ wishes to be reinstated, the Subdivision may allow the controller to be reinstated immediately or otherwise will define a training plan. This can include written courses, self-study materials and/or one practical session with a suitable controller. All training must be relevant to the controller’s currency and cannot require the controller to undergo a course designed for controllers training for a rating. No training plan may be more extensive than this, unless explicitly requested by the returning controller.

I don’t think that this element of GCAP will provide you with the answer to the legitimate issue of people not controlling for several years and then making a hash of it. Whereas, as you suggest, the below appears to offer the solution.

• A controller is expected to be competent to control the positions they connect to.
• Where a controller is consistently below the required standard as defined within this document to the point that it causes disruption to other account holders, a Subdivision may petition their Division to place restrictions on this controller until the problem is resolved. The requested restrictions could include the removal of endorsement(s) and removal of eligibility to receive training for a higher ATC rating.
• Such a petition must show reliable and sustained evidence of the controller’s impact. When a Division receives a petition, it shall notify the Region Vice President. If a Division considers this petition to be appropriate, it shall be presented to the Region Vice President for a decision.
• Placing restrictions on a controller shall only be considered following attempts to resolve the situation by the Subdivision.
• The Region Vice President may partially delegate their responsibilities for reviewing and actioning these petitions but must be notified prior to restrictions being imposed.

My suggestion is to drop the hours requirements on a quarterly basis and instead require one connection as a controller in a 12 month period, and acknowledge updates to local procedures relevant to their ATC position (this is already largely in place via UKCP). Then put the bulk of the hard work you are all doing into formulating a strong and robust policy between VATUK and Simon so that when the individual who presents a real issue does come along, the Division can act faster and more effectively to block controlling at a level they have lost capability to control… rather than imposing additional burden on others who are unlikely to fall into that category.

I hope this suggestion is taken in the spirit intended, as I recognise the problem. I think there is a different solution which achieves that aim more robustly and without impacting those who aren’t the target of these efforts.

Callum

Good morning, Callum,

20 hours ago, Callum McLoughlin said:

Hi Adam

...

Why were the other two options ruled out either in combination or on their own, and why was the maximum of three hours chosen rather than another time period?

...

Moreover, I note that the division will be limited anyway in terms of what can be required in terms of re-currency.

...

My suggestion is to drop the hours requirements on a quarterly basis and instead require one connection as a controller in a 12 month period, and acknowledge updates to local procedures relevant to their ATC position (this is already largely in place via UKCP). Then put the bulk of the hard work you are all doing into formulating a strong and robust policy between VATUK and Simon so that when the individual who presents a real issue does come along, the Division can act faster and more effectively to block controlling at a level they have lost capability to control… rather than imposing additional burden on others who are unlikely to fall into that category.

I have spoken with others within the DSG who predate my tenure to understand how the division reached this position. I am pleased to say their thoughts are mine:

• We are a busy division with some busy and complex airspace which changes frequently. A three month absence is the difference between there being no FRA and there being FRA.
• Three hours is really considered very little. One hour a month to remain current is not much.
• Our revalidation process is considered to be very lenient: "read this, tell us you have, welcome back" - in most cases.
• The idea that someone can make 'a connection' of undefined length in 12 months is meaningless - I can connect for one minute, the connection be detected and I am considered current.

To your point on recurrency - yes, we are limited. But that doesn't make it challenging and we still intend to be lenient. This should be an easily accessible process for anyone that is removed from the Controller Roster for currency reasons. We remain convinced that three hours per quarter is a perfectly achievable target - certainly more achievable than the 'you must participate every 31 days' that we see in some other virtual organisations!

Please rest assured that Simon and I have spoken many times on what we think would be acceptable by way of petition to the region on competency grounds. It is not formalised; more an understanding of what is required by us to try to remedy locally and what is required of us to present a good case to Simon. Needless to say this is a last resort and we hope that controllers who have been away for some time and lack competence engage with us before that's needed.

Cheers,
Adam

Hello Callum. A bit pedantic as a former lawyer (😥), but am puzzled by the requirement in GCAP 9.4(c)(ii) - 

The controller meets an activity requirement which shall not exceed three hours on any controllable positions within the Subdivision or Division in a three-month period. 

This literally means that the activity must be less than 3 hours. If you do 4 hours then you do not qualify !! Surely it should say "shall be a minimum of three hours in total on any one or more"

 

5 hours ago, Adam Arkley said:

Please rest assured that Simon and I have spoken many times on what we think would be acceptable by way of petition to the region on competency grounds. It is not formalised; more an understanding of what is required by us to try to remedy locally and what is required of us to present a good case to Simon. Needless to say this is a last resort and we hope that controllers who have been away for some time and lack competence engage with us before that's needed.

Would it not make sense to formalise this, given other processes that impede on members ability to fly/control are? In addition as it is unlikely to be a routine issue, there is more chance of inconsistency / unfairness? This could be published so everybody can see, in general, how things generally would progress. I don’t think it would necessitate tying down anything specific, but I think it is helpful to properly plan for this in advance.

2 hours ago, Robin Meads said:

Hello Callum. A bit pedantic as a former lawyer (😥), but am puzzled by the requirement in GCAP 9.4(c)(ii) - 

The controller meets an activity requirement which shall not exceed three hours on any controllable positions within the Subdivision or Division in a three-month period. 

This literally means that the activity must be less than 3 hours. If you do 4 hours then you do not qualify !! Surely it should say "shall be a minimum of three hours in total on any one or more"

 

The requirement cannot exceed three hours. The activity may.

I find the defendant guilty and sentence them to a period of controlling of a duration no less than level 6 on the standard scale.

7 minutes ago, Callum McLoughlin said:

Would it not make sense to formalise this, given other processes that impede on members ability to fly/control are? In addition as it is unlikely to be a routine issue, there is more chance of inconsistency / unfairness? This could be published so everybody can see, in general, how things generally would progress. I don’t think it would necessitate tying down anything specific, but I think it is helpful to properly plan for this in advance.

I have properly planned for this in advance. You'd have to speak to the region if you think it should be enshrined in policy - GCAP is, of course, a .Net policy and not a VATSIM UK policy!

3 minutes ago, Adam Arkley said:

I have properly planned for this in advance. You'd have to speak to the region if you think it should be enshrined in policy - GCAP is, of course, a .Net policy and not a VATSIM UK policy!

I think I am looking for something along the lines of a local policy applicable to VATUK. The division appears to be the arbiter of whether to petition to the VP, and what to recommend in terms of action. There is a lot of scope to do almost anything in the wording of GCAP, as it contains suggestions rather than an exhaustive list of outcomes. As such I think the division needs to be a driver of this.

Hello Adam,

Was looking at becoming current again, been refreshing on procedures and looking to setup my controller client again on the weekend to get some controlling in.    Where can I find this web based wizard or is it a current case of just doing the revision/refresher/self learning and logging in before 1st of April? 

Update:  I see I can't control and have had to email member services.  So reading all of the above, presume some self-learning or a quiz is in order?

On 28/02/2024 at 19:20, Adam Arkley said:

To actually answer your question, self serving to renew currency at the initial implementation of GCAP will be a very simple web-only wizard in order to point people at procedure changes since the controller was last current. Users will simply be asked to acknowledge that they have read the documentation before being readded to the roster. No mentoring, review, controlling, assessment or quiz is required. 

Edited March 7 by Robbie Garrett

Creating hurdles and making it harder for past controllers to come back doesn’t seem like a future-proof, cutting-edge vision 🤷‍♂️

‘Self-serve’ is one thing but it seems evident you would like to make the case for returning controllers to require mentoring going forward. 

Been a while since I was on the network but some things in Vatsim (UK) never change 😂

Edited March 9 by Oliver Parker

2 minutes ago, Oliver Parker said:

Creating hurdles and making it harder for past controllers to come back doesn’t seem like a future-proof, cutting-edge vision 🤷‍♂️

‘Self-serve’ is one thing but it seems evident you would like to make the case for returning controllers to require mentoring going forward. 

Been a while since I was on the network but some things in Vatsim (UK) never change 😂

Given the time since you last regularly controlled, do you honestly think you could log on and control tomorrow like nothing happened? Your controversial opinions might not have changed, but the network is busier than ever and procedures change regularly. GCAP is not a VATSIM UK policy - but I fully intend to ensure that people are competent before letting them loose on the network after protracted absences.

2 minutes ago, Adam Arkley said:

Given the time since you last regularly controlled, do you honestly think you could log on and control tomorrow like nothing happened? Your controversial opinions might not have changed, but the network is busier than ever and procedures change regularly. GCAP is not a VATSIM UK policy - but I fully intend to ensure that people are competent before letting them loose on the network after protracted absences.

Like a duck to water mate!!!

If only you’d have had this job 15 years ago!!! I might come back and do my Self Serve if I ever buy myself a Windows device!!!

Take it easy pal, hope you’re well. 

Hi Adam,

"Currency Renewal
Under GCAP, all controllers in divisions which maintain a Controller Roster will be required to control for a minimum of 3 hours in each fixed quarter. Should controllers become inactive, they will be automatically removed from the Controller Roster and be required to 'renew' their currency. During our initial implementation of GCAP, controllers will be able to 'self serve' through a web-based wizard in order to be re-added to the Controller Roster."

 

Was looking at returning to controlling, any idea where I can find this web-based self-serve wizard in order to return to the active roster?

Thanks Shaun

On 17/03/2024 at 23:04, Shaun Anderson said:

Was looking at returning to controlling, any idea where I can find this web-based self-serve wizard in order to return to the active roster?

I was thinking about returning also. I think this is may be what you are after: https://www.vatsim.uk/roster

I've been away too long (>18 months) so cannot self-serve.